Are you seriously saying that somehow the country’s economic status will not hurt Obama’s chances? Really? Right or wrong, it is his baggage now. More than three years in, I don’t think he can as successfully push the buck to the previous administration as he rightfully did in his first year.
I think there’s a lot of wishful thinking on the parts of conservatives that have embraced and internalized this notion that Obama only does well when reading from a TelePrompter, that when faced with a real debate opponent, the President will wilt. I think there is scant evidence in support of that proposition. Have we already forgotten the time he dropped by the Republican caucus meeting and took on all comers?
Late to the party here, but unless Obama has significantly improved his debating skills in the last 4 years, I would give at least slight odds to Newt. I was pretty shocked at how poorly Obama did in the debates against Hillary. The problem Newt has is that he’s overconfident and can easily end up saying something rather silly. But if he is able to stay on message, he will give Obama a very good run for the money.
The correct answer is Newt Gingrich.
As someone who likes clear concise answers with supportive evidence (add historical context, data, shared reasoning) I cannot fathom President Obama winning on substance on any given subject matter and policy.
However, if we rate a debate on generalities, salesmanship, parroted accusations, canned talking points, improperly framed analogies, class-warfare, gaffes, murmers-stutters- and ummmm’s then perhaps Obama has the upper-hand.
There’s tons of support. His showing in the primary debates is pitiful. He did get the upperhand with McCain in the general elections, but only because McCain was saddled with a much weakened economy. Absent that, McCain would have mopped the floor with him. This time around, fair or not, it’s Obama that’s holding the economic baggage.
My answer assumes we are using the standard media template for deciding who wins and who is smart.
That is to say Gingrich must be precise in every regard without the slightest room for misinterpretation.
President Obama for each topic is allowed to give 12 irrelevant answers, 11 giant ummms, 10 wrong dates, 9 wrong states, 8 mispronunciations, 7 fictitious victims, 6 general notions, 5 blank stares, 4 dirty looks, 3 long sighs, 2 fists a shaking, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Gingrich will win, but if Obama wins it’s the fault of the liberal media; getting your excuses prepared in advance, eh?
Why don’t you watch the video I posted earlier in this very thread? Obama is fine off the cuff and has a solid command of the issues.
You appear to have been roped in by the conservative misinformation bubble and are holding a flawed impression of how Obama speaks.
Absolutely wrong.
Take financial reform, for instance. Newt is completely ignorant on the subject as demonstrated in this year’s debates.
Obama can defend his reform and attack the banks for the 2008 financial crisis. Now, thanks to Obama, banks need to retain adequate capital, derivatives are regulated, Ratings Agencies are reformed, exotic trading is curtailed, etc.
If Newt pulls out his lies about Fannie and Freddie he can be painted as their enabler who pulled in $1.6 trillion from them to prop them up.
Example #2 - Newt lies about his “surpluses” in the 90’s. They were Clinton surpluses and Newt voted against the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act which was the driver of the later budget surplus.
Obama must be prepared for Gingrich’s lies though - that is what Plouffe and Axlerod have in store for them.
There will be two types of Gingrich lies - the factually incorrect (above) and the name calling lies (a Kenyan anti-Colonialist).
I consider the second more problematical.
We will revisit this thread after the first debate and you will be wowed by my prophetic insight.
Since I will be doing all the work here, you bring nachos and beer.
Wishful thinking on the part of a Hilary die hard.
Obama would be tasked with two things in a debate with Newt:
-
Make effective factual arguments.
-
Be more likeable.
Gingrich is wonkier than Obama, but wonkier does not equal smarter. Wonkiness is worse than useless unless you can relate it to regular people in a coherent narrative. Something that Bill Clinton excelled at, BTW. Obama’s not as good, but compared to the arcana obsessed Gingrich, Obama positively a great communicator. Like a lot of people who love to hear themselves talk, Gingrich doesn’t know when to stop.
On the likability scale, Obama’s an order of magnitude more likable than Gingrich. It’s truly an unfair match up. Obama’s also got a picture perfect family. Gingrich, well, at least he hasn’t raped any little boys.
And you also have a flawed perception of the media.
Well, it’s purely hypothetical, I expect Romney is the one who will be debating Obama.
Wishful thinking from a Kool Aid drinker. (See how that works?)
Obama was more likable than Hillary and that didn’t stop Hillary from wiping the floor with Obama.
Boy, the PUMAs just won’t die, will they?
And BTW, what “economic baggage” was McCain holding in 2008? He wasn’t president for the previous four years. (And don’t even trot out the “No Republican could have gotten elected thanks to Bush” meme. We didn’t buy three years ago and we don’t buy it now.)
Boy, the Kool Aid Drinkers are still high on hope and change, aren’t they? See how that works?
And yes, no republican could have gotten elected at that time because of the economy (not because of Bush). Had the economy not tanked, McCain could have won.
Did she now?
Self-esteem preservation as political theory? My candidate didn’t really lose. It was the media, the economy, the Kool Aid drinkers, the whoevers.
She did as judged by me and practically every political commentator.
You and that guy from Pittsburgh?
Of course, that’s the problem with self-esteem preservation as a strategy. It allows you to avoid deep psychological wounds, so you can survive to fight another day.
What it doesn’t allow you to do is win, because winning requires a hard look at the painful truth.
Wow! Projection much? Self-esteem preservation would be the strategy that most Kool Aid drinkers will be using by now. After all, their Messiah didn’t deliver and the Hopey Changey thing didn’t succeed. And I’m the one with deep psychological wounds? I’m not even American. 